This editorial offers a few thoughts on making sense of journal and article impact metrics. The editorial advocates measures of journal productivity and author impact that go beyond the use of a single measure of journal impact factor. The editorial includes data on the ranking of business and finance journals by journal productivity-impact metrics as well as journal impact factor values that editors sometimes refer to in off-site "Meet the Editors" sessions. Members of tenure and promotion committees frequently refer to impact factors of the journals candidates' publications appear in. Such metrics sometimes are the primary rationale for hiring, promoting, and firing faculty candidates even though the metric dominating thinking is unrepresentative of most faculty candidates' scholarly impacts and is highly unrepresentative of the majority of articles in all academic journals. This editorial suggests the use of multiple metrics for evaluating journals and candidates scholarly contributions. The editorial demonstrates a proposal for using a weighted journal productivity-impact factor and the creation of formal templates for evaluating the impact of individual candidate's scholarly contributions.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.